| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/16/2009 12:56:55 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by AP:
Wait so now i'm confused... ANY tool, when it creates a distinct 'effect' is now illegal? |
so if you take sharpening to an extreme...DQ? (i.e. SUPER haloing and turning the image from a photograph to a graphic) |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 01:02:46 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Originally posted by AP:
Wait so now i'm confused... ANY tool, when it creates a distinct 'effect' is now illegal? |
so if you take sharpening to an extreme...DQ? (i.e. SUPER haloing and turning the image from a photograph to a graphic) |
Originally posted by Basic Editing Rules since 2006:
You may use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. |
Originally posted by Prior Basic Editing Rules in 2005:
Any filter or stand-alone utility designed and used to preserve the integrity of the image... |
Message edited by author 2009-07-16 01:05:31. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 01:05:26 AM · #103 |
Does that include the other stuff like 'paint strokes' or whatever that people use sometimes, and for challenges like the Impressionism challenge? And also the 'soft focus' and slight blur effects that we see?
Sorry if i missed something below |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 01:06:17 AM · #104 |
| oh those aren't 'designed to preserve integrity'. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 01:51:57 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i have edited the first post in the thread and have changed the rules page.
The restriction on Topaz Adjust has been removed. It is legal for Basic Editing challenges, subject to the rest of the ruleset.
thank you all for your input. it is appreciated.
(i would also appreciate it if someone would link to this thread the next time someone talks about how the SC never listens or is out of touch. :P) |
That's good news. Thank you very much :-)
R. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 07:43:06 AM · #106 |
| Nice work SC. We appreciate all that you do, and especially appreciate anything to simplify and harmonize the rules sets. I really think you guys earned your hefty paychecks on this one. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 07:45:25 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
saying "I don't like the overly processed look" is complete crap. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No Jeb, we call that a personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it thankyouverymuch. |
I wish you would have quoted me in toto rather than excise the important qualifier.....
If you want to ban Topaz for a legitimate, or even a subjective reason like you just don't know enough about it to allow it, fine, but saying "I don't like the overly processed look" is complete crap.
Of course you're entitled to your personal opinion, but that same opinion, especially as ill-informed as it sounded certainly isn't fair either to the photogs here, or an accurate statement of the capabilities of the tool.
You wanna make it illegal, fine, even if it's subjective, but just say that rather than expressing your ignorance of the reasonable applications of the tool.
I'm not by any stretch of the imagination either the creative person that you are, nor the experienced processor, but that statement just really came off rotten from someone who is generally so reasonable and not likely to make ridiculous statements. If someone of my limited abilities can appreciate the tool for its abilities to make subtle and minor adjustments that clean up an image, then maybe it's not so bad, eh?
Message edited by author 2009-07-16 07:47:27.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2009 07:50:59 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by thatsanicepicture:
Now listen. I don’t want anybody throwing rocks at meâ€Â¦. I love Photomatix and not the evil side of it, but the beautiful even exposure side of it. However, can Photomatix be legal when it uses three exposures? The basic rules still states
“You Must: Create your entry from a single capture”
One can argue that through the use of the RAW converter one image can be “Exposure” tweaked. But if you do that and combine them into one allowable image then you were doing it to get the “Photomatix Effect” Without doing a normal (REAL?) HDR. Isn’t that an effect filter then?
Howeverâ€Â¦ Since its being used in “Basic” already and all the time by many DPCers I would like it to be legal.
So can we use three exposures??? |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No we can't use 3 exposures in basic. Photomatix has a "tone mapper" that can be applied to a single exposure. Photoshop has a rough equivalent called "shadow/highlight". Another rough equivalent is Topaz Adjust. That oine, however, is apparently still illegal...
R. |
CS2 and later also have the 8-16-32-8 bit single image HDR conversion that "works over" an image in a pseudo tone-mapping on a single image as well....
Here.....
|
|
|
|
07/16/2009 07:59:20 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i have edited the first post in the thread and have changed the rules page.
The restriction on Topaz Adjust has been removed. It is legal for Basic Editing challenges, subject to the rest of the ruleset.
thank you all for your input. it is appreciated.
(i would also appreciate it if someone would link to this thread the next time someone talks about how the SC never listens or is out of touch. :P) |
I have never, nor will I say that.
Nice work.
Originally posted by scalvert:
*poof* Discrepancy solved, though it's somewhat moot this week since every challenge is Advanced. ;-) |
Now all tools are legal... just don't use them to an extreme that looks like a special effect (that's our next issue to tackle).
I think that linking any DQ to these last two posts specifically, and this thread in general would pretty much take the wind out of the sails of any squawking about an extremism DQ.
Personally, I'm kind of surprised, delightfully so, that you guys are allowing these plug-ins in Basic.
Thanks!
Message edited by author 2009-07-16 07:59:39.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2009 07:59:53 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by AP:
Does that include the other stuff like 'paint strokes' or whatever that people use sometimes, and for challenges like the Impressionism challenge? And also the 'soft focus' and slight blur effects that we see? |
as you yourself stated, those are "effects." from the existing rules:
Originally posted by Basic Editing Rules:
No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur. |
|
|
|
|
07/16/2009 08:47:44 AM · #111 |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 08:50:52 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i have edited the first post in the thread and have changed the rules page.
The restriction on Topaz Adjust has been removed. It is legal for Basic Editing challenges, subject to the rest of the ruleset.
thank you all for your input. it is appreciated.
(i would also appreciate it if someone would link to this thread the next time someone talks about how the SC never listens or is out of touch. :P) |
YAY! Thank you! |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 08:53:38 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
 |
What? Am I missing something?
R. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 09:06:02 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
|
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What? Am I missing something?
R. |
Yeah.....
The special decoder glasses......8>)
|
|
|
|
07/16/2009 09:08:30 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by AP:
Does that include the other stuff like 'paint strokes' or whatever that people use sometimes, and for challenges like the Impressionism challenge? And also the 'soft focus' and slight blur effects that we see? |
as you yourself stated, those are "effects." from the existing rules:
Originally posted by Basic Editing Rules:
No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur. |
|
In Paint Shop Pro things like Neat Image and Virtual Photographer are accessed via the "Effects" menu as this is where the Plugins are reachable.
I've always stayed away from items in this area for Basic Editing challenges (with the exception of Neat Image) - so it's now legal to use a PSP "Effects" item such as Virtual Photographer for Basic Editing ruleset challenges, yes?
nik Efex filters also reside in this area (Effects/Plugins). Legal for Basic? |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 09:11:48 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
In Paint Shop Pro things like Neat Image and Virtual Photographer are accessed via the "Effects" menu as this is where the Plugins are reachable. |
In PS, they're in the Filters menu.....
|
|
|
|
07/16/2009 09:54:17 AM · #117 |
Under "You may" in the Basic Editing ruleset it states:
"use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur."
When does it (VP, Photomatix, Topaz, etc...) go beyond "preserv(ing) image integrity", or when does "their use become a feature"? It seems a bit conflicting, especially the part about preserving image integrity because really, we want (or will) use the mentioned tools to enhance or make a photo "pop".
Some examples using VP (many of these would enhance landscapes better I think, than the example I've used):
 - Original
 - Virtual Photographer: Glamour,  - Virtual Photographer: Linen,  - Virtual Photographer: Yearbook
Would these examples pass validation for Basic Editing rules? |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 10:33:12 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Would these examples pass validation for Basic Editing rules? |
the second and third almost certainly would, as they appear (at quick glance) to be simple duotone conversions.
the first would most likely be debated, with a questionable outcome.
as has been stated before, this immediate change to the Basic rules was to quickly ensure that we are all on the same page when it comes to the tools that are allowed. you can make significant edits to images using already-legal tools that would fall into the same "added feature" gray area.
our intent is to look more closely at the Basic rules very soon and see if there is a way to minimize the subjectivity as much as possible. because that is a much bigger process, however, we've put this stopgap measure in place for immediate clarification.
everyone is advised to stick to the guideline of preserving image integrity.
we welcome additional thoughts about the Basic editing rules. Barry, your first example would be a great talking point in that discussion. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 11:07:56 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Would these examples pass validation for Basic Editing rules? |
the second and third almost certainly would, as they appear (at quick glance) to be simple duotone conversions.
the first would most likely be debated, with a questionable outcome.
as has been stated before, this immediate change to the Basic rules was to quickly ensure that we are all on the same page when it comes to the tools that are allowed. you can make significant edits to images using already-legal tools that would fall into the same "added feature" gray area.
our intent is to look more closely at the Basic rules very soon and see if there is a way to minimize the subjectivity as much as possible. because that is a much bigger process, however, we've put this stopgap measure in place for immediate clarification.
everyone is advised to stick to the guideline of preserving image integrity.
we welcome additional thoughts about the Basic editing rules. Barry, your first example would be a great talking point in that discussion. |
Thanks Rob - Regarding the first example, that's just one of many ways to add a "glow" or "soft focus" look that is quite popular - other filters within the Virtual Photographer group include 'Ambience' 'Dreamy', 'Halo', 'Radiant', 'Romance', 'Diffuse', 'High key', 'Reminiscing', plus many, many more. Filter sets by other vendors have similarly named items available.
I'm really quite surprised that this whole can of worms has been opened by re-allowing software such as VP, Topaz, etc...not that I won't take advantage of it - I certainly will! :-) |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 11:23:07 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I'm really quite surprised that this whole can of worms has been opened by re-allowing software such as VP, Topaz, etc...not that I won't take advantage of it - I certainly will! :-) |
honestly, i'm as surprised as you are. when we started analyzing the tools that people were asking questions about, we realized that the TRUE can of worms was coming up with a list of what you could and could not use. :/ talk about an administrative nightmare.
this is a good middle ground for everyone now. challengers can stretch their editing a little bit, and we can take some time to discuss where the Basic rules really should be. :) |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 11:29:56 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... this is a good middle ground for everyone now. challengers can stretch their editing a little bit, and we can take some time to discuss where the Basic rules really should be. :) |
The BIG question, as least for me, is how much is "a little bit", and at what point does it go beyond to the point of a potential DQ? |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 11:35:27 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by muckpond:
... this is a good middle ground for everyone now. challengers can stretch their editing a little bit, and we can take some time to discuss where the Basic rules really should be. :) |
The BIG question, as least for me, is how much is "a little bit", and at what point does it go beyond to the point of a potential DQ? |
and i'll turn that back to you and let YOU really consider whether the edits you are making are preserving the image integrity (i.e. making starbursts brighter), or adding stuff that wasn't there before (adding starbursts).
we aren't changing how we implement the rules. the "added feature" language has been in the Basic rules for quite some time. we're just opening up your workflow so that you can "preserve image integrity" with whatever tools you want. that's what i meant by "stretching your editing a little bit." i was referring to the tools themselves...not the extent to which they are used.
Message edited by author 2009-07-16 11:37:16. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 11:43:08 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Maybe the rules should be written like this to make things clearer. Of course the rules can be adjusted to fit DPC. |
that I loveeee |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 12:02:54 PM · #124 |
| i think it was bear_music in one of the rules discussion threads who said that we are all pretty sure where the line is, and its when we approach that line that we risk DQ. Like Muckpond said, its about image integrity and not creating digital art. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 12:05:03 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Maybe the rules should be written like this to make things clearer. Of course the rules can be adjusted to fit DPC. |
For the most part, that's all I ever do. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 04:57:22 PM EDT.
